While my law experience is attempting to get out of a few—read many—speeding tickets over the years, there's always been something about contract law that irks me. And that's how aftermarket parts can void warranties.
I understand that if you throw on a turbocharger or add nitrous to a UTV, hence "enhancing" its performance, performance it wasn't designed for, it could lead to catastrophic failure, i.e. it blowing up in your face. And in that case, you—the person who added those modifications—are liable for that failure. It's your stupid ass who did the thing.
But when it comes to replacing a like part for like part, but maybe from a different manufacturer than the original was, something that works identically to that original part but is maybe cheaper, why should that affect your warranty? It's only saving you money. And even some other aftermarket parts, things that don't necessarily affect a machine's performance, could be part of this too. Yet, they all tend to void your warranty.
Should that really be the case? Well, that's what a class-action lawsuit is asking as a group of Harley-Davidson customers are suing the Motor Co. for antitrust infringement.
